Skip to main content

About your Search

English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
Jan 28, 2013 12:00pm EST
the taxes that support government expenditures. they paid premiums through their employers for health coverage. they forgo wage increases that could be much higher if health costs were not growing as fast. they believe are the beneficiaries of the whole two trillion dollars in the end. we are not talking about the blood in the streets. people fighting over dwindling -- over a dwindling pie. i would posit that only in health care what the growth from two 0.9 trillion dollars in 2013 to 5.1 trillion dollars in 2023 would be referred to as a shrinking pie. there will be plenty of resources flowing into the health-care system, just not quite as much as would be flowing if nothing was done. we are talking now to give you some sense of the magnitude of this. we are talking about the .rojected health policy twee if you say two trillion dollars in that growth, you would be reducing health spending to only 40 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. you would be cutting the growth in health spending from an estimated 90% under current policy to only 75% over the next two -- over the next 10 ye
Jan 28, 2013 8:30am EST
in louisiana including the tax reform he's just launched in the past few weeks, what he's doing is trying to think about how at this moment at a time when globalization's putting enormous pressures on working class voters, at a time when the economy is going through a very complicated, difficult moment when it's not clear how to get back to growth, he's thinking creatively about how to use the strength of his state to build on its weaknesseses. and i think at the national level that's what conservatives have to do. to some extempt, it's being done. i would say the policy agenda that has to come at the end of that conversation is not fully worked out by any means, but the questions are being asked. i think the direction of thinking has been helpful even in the wake of the election. if you listen to what people like marco rubio or paul ryan have been saying, it's different from what they themselves were saying six months ago, a year ago. i think the focus is turning to the right place. that doesn't mean that he'll persuade the public, but it certainly helps to ask the right question if you'
Jan 25, 2013 7:00am EST
-class families, of which could then go to educating their kids or building up their savings. tax reform, that is also important for conservatives and republicans. host: a question from our viewer -- guest: tom cotten, the congressman from arkansas, a friend of mine. he went to harvard, which i went to, so i'm biased. he went to harvard law school, which i don't hold against him. he volunteered for the army in 2004, served as an officer in iraq and afghanistan, work for is that business a while, had a close primary against an aggressive womaperson. but he won. there he is, a first term congressman in the house. he will be able to weigh in on the chuck hagel nomination. he has spoken eloquently on that. he is a real rising star in the house. he is already respected by his peers. he was involved with the speaker, paul ryan, and others, in trying to devise a tactical maneuver to get the debt ceiling moved back and to able to deal with sequester. he will have a tough decision in a few months. there's pressure on him in arkansas to run for senate in 2014 against price yoryor, a vulnerable dem
Jan 23, 2013 6:00pm PST
the high speed computer trades. >> is there any downside to a tax? >> yeah, if you're a hedge fund manager or one of the high-speed traders, you're going to have to pay some tax and it's going to discourage you from making bets that distort the market. for the rest of us, i don't see a downside, ed. >> how would we make a determination? because you know they would come back and say oh, this is really going to hurt the economy. how would this hurt the economy? >> i don't see how discouraging speculation, which is almost all done with borrowed money. they effectively borrow money at a rate of 30 to 1. you put 3% down and borrow the rest of the money. i don't see how this hurts the economy. and if we reduce this volatility and reduce market distortion, we can get back to having a market focused on investments that create production in the future and wealth in the future, not creaming the market today through speculation. >> quickly, you think this is something congress could embrace? >> not probably in this congress in the house, but i think this is an idea. it's been around for 80 ye
FOX News
Jan 24, 2013 10:00am PST
in tax and regulatory policies, that discouraged business investment and job creation for all workers, including union workers. lou dobbs is the host of "lou dobbs tonight" and the percentage of union workers, the lowest in 76 years. >> and it's a decline taking place, megyn under president obama whose principle allies and his ground operations are america's labor unions. the afl-cio service employees unions, the teachers unions, and the national labor relations board which he has stacked with his democratic allies, pro labor, driving the principal agency in charge of relations between business and labor. >> megyn: they've tried to make it as easy as possible nlrb for a company to union, a work force to unionize. why is it? because the companies are hurting and therefore, they dent feel -- the unions don't feel like they could extract what they want from the company, so why bother? >> well, the unions are extracting what they can and it has risen in point of fact. and the extraction takes place really between the union member, the man or woman, working as a member of the union sending
Jan 23, 2013 9:00pm EST
problem. and the president wants to increase taxes to continue the spending. >> these democrats are going to spend us right into bankruptcy. they're not serious about getting things under control and stopping the spending. >> the white house is so unserious about cutting spending. >> none of that is true. i mean, to the extent that true means attached to facts. here is spending under bush. here is spending under clinton. here is how spending has dropped under president obama. these guys were not mad about george w. bush's big spike in spending, buzz they have decided to get really mad at the guy who is fixing that, and that anger is weird enough on its own terms. it's weird enough that this republican analysis of this problem is so divorced from reality. but what today's news reminded us is it's not just the analysis that is weird, it's also the purpose of the analysis, what they are using this cockamamy backwards analysis to justify that is really deeply strange. for decades, raising the debt ceiling was something that congress has been willing to do. since the presidency of fdr, congres
Jan 25, 2013 3:00am PST
the presidency, rammed through those bush tax cuts in march of his first year in. democrats get power, and they are free to use it. this time, we democrats won the white house. we picked up what? three seats or whatever it was in the senate, held on to the senate and picked up, up to 55 votes in the senate and picked up -- didn't win the house but won eight new seats in the house of representatives. so democrats have the power today. this was the best moment, the best opportunity we will ever have to do something important for this nation in order to get things done no matter which party is in charge and go aheadet rid of the filibuster or at least fix it so that it can't -- it's not subject to such abuse and refuse to do it. just walked away from that opportunity. harry reid did. diane, up in buffalo new york hey, diane, good morning. >> hey, bill. how are you? >> bill: i am good. just a little -- caller: i am not just disappointed. i am angry. i am so angry at harry reid. you know, we fight the fight every day against these republicans against t
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)